born again by baptism and the Spirit. If the new-born infant," however, is only born again by baptism and the Spirit, he is safe; because he is no longer deserving of damnation. Alas, for all the poor infants, whose baptism has been neglected!

There is one word, however, in the second article of the Augsburg confession, which the Bishop of Ely has overlooked in the above translation:-it is the insignificant word æternam. Was it out of respect for the Lutheran divines, or for the great reformers of his own Church, that this little word was overlooked and omitted in his translation? The translation of the same article, by Charles P. Krauth, D. D., Norton Professor in the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Seminary, Philadelphia, reads as follows: Article II., Of Original Sin. Also they teach that after Adam's fall, all men begotten after the common course of nature, are born with sin; that is, without the fear of God, without trust in him, and with fleshly appetite; and that this disease, or original fault, is truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death now also upon all that are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit.' (p. 17.) Now this is sufficiently plain, and consigns, not only to condemnation, but also to the horrors of the second death-aternam mortem-all who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. The fathers and reformers of the English Church are, as we shall presently see, equally explicit with respect to the nature and the deserts of original sin. In their ninth Article, they say that, in every one that is born into the world, it 'deserveth God's wrath and damnation.' If we inquire what they mean by damnation,' we shall find that it is not some kind of condemnation or other,' but really and truly God's wrath and damnation,'' death temporal, spiritual, and eternal.' They had not, as we shall soon perceive, the clear-minded Christian charity which, in the present age, shrinks, with such indescribable horror, from the doctrine that, on account of original, or birth-sin,' all unbaptized infants deserve 'eternal damnation.' What business have the wicked little creatures, or devils, to be born into the world without the fear of God,' and 'without faith in Him? In the language of Luther, they are not only sinners,' but lumps of sin;' and as such, of course, they deserve the everlasting torments of fire."

In the ninth Article, which treats of 'original, or birth-sin,' it is said, that in every person, born into the world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. Now, it is highly honorable, as it seems to us, to the clergy of the Episcopal Church generally, that these words are not agreeable to their hearts. We wish we could say, that the manner in which they deal with these very inconvenient words, is equally honorable to their heads. In common language, as well as in the Bible, the term damnation stands opposed to the word salvation. This is, moreover, the meaning attached to the word among theologians. Hence, no unsophisticated reader would, for one moment, imagine that the terms God's wrath and damnation' referred to this life only. He would, on the contrary, suppose that as the word salvation refers to the blessedness, so the term damnation refers to the misery, of the future life. But theologians are not always unsophisticated.

Accordingly, various attempts have been made to explain away the very disagreeable words in questions, and bring the doctrine of the ninth Article into a more perfect harmony with the dictates of reason and conscience. The Lord Bishop of Ely, in his Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, says: 'We come next to consider the statement which is made in the Article, that original sin "in every person born into the world deserveth God's wrath and damnation." Dr. Hey thinks that the word "damnation" is not necessarily to be understood of condemnation to eternal death, but may be construed, according to the proper signification of the term, (?) to mean merely condemnation of some kind or other.' But if the Article means this only, why, in the name of common sense and common honesty, did it not say this, and this only? Why, in treating of the great doctrine of salvation and its opposite, did it say 'God's wrath and damnation,' when it only meant some kind of condemnation or other? Why use such awful terms, if the meaning be so mild? Why use such clear, distinct, and emphatic words, causing the blood to curdle with horror, if the meaning be so indefinite and so indistinct? Would it not have been just as easy to say, that original sin is punishable, or deserves some kind of condemnation or other, as that it deserves God's wrath and damnation"?

The idea of eternal death, or damnation, says Burnet, in his Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 'does certainly quadrate more entirely to the words of the Article, as it is known that this was the tenet of those who prepared the Article, it having been the generally received opinion from St. Austin's days downward.' But an Arminian clergy, who have been so unfortunate as to subscribe to Calvinistic Articles, must find some other meaning of them, which does not so entirely quadrate with their words. Hence, as Burnet adds, to many other divines this seems a harsh and inconceivable opinion; it seems repugnant to the justice and goodness of God, to reckon men guilty of a sin which they never committed, and to punish them in their souls eternally for that which is no act of theirs.' According to these divines, continues our author, 'It is no small prejudice against this opinion, (i. e. the eternal death or damnation of unbaptized infants,) that it was so long before it appeared in the Latin Church; and that it never appeared in the Greek; and that even the Western Church, though perhaps for some ignorant ages it received it, as it did every thing else very implicitly, yet has been very much divided, both about this and many other opinions relating to it, or arising out of it.'

'It is known,' says Burnet, that the terrible dogma in question 'was the tenet of those who prepared the Article' on original sin. Those who prepared that Article, indeed, did not overlook the words æternam mortem in the Augsburg Confession; nor did they hesitate to adopt them as their own. They have not left the shadow of an obscurity as to the sense in which they understood their own Article, or in which they intended it should be received by others. For, in Article XXXV., which treats of the Homilies it is said: The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times; as doth the former Book of Homilies, which was set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people. Now, if the Ministers had only read these Homilies for themselves, to say nothing of their Churches, they would

have entertained no doubt whatever as to the meaning in which the authors of the Ninth Article intended it to be understood and preached to the people. For, in the First Book of HomiMes, written in the reign of Edward VI., it is clearly and explicitly stated, that by the 'breaking of God's commandment in our first parent Adam', that we, that all men, have in themselves no goodness, help, nor salvation; but contrawise, sin, damnation, and death everlasting." It is difficult to conceive how words could be more explicit. Yet, in the Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Lord Bishop of Ely says: The statements [of the Ninth Article] are quite general; yet sufficiently guarding the truth that every man naturally engendered of Adam brings into the world a nature inclined to evil, and very far removed from the original righteousness of our first parents, that this sinfulness of his nature deserves God's wrath.'

The homily On the Misery of Man,' composed, or at least approved by Crammer, breathes the same spirit. Now, in view of the above quotation from the Homily on the Misery of Man, can it be said that its 'statements are quite géneral'? Is there not, on the contrary, a dreadful particularity in the statement, that. by the breaking of God's commandment by our first parent Adam', all men are, not only inclined to evil', but have in themselves sin, damnation, and death everlasting"? 'The homily on the Nativity,' continues the Bishop, in the second book of homilies, drawn up some time later, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, may be referred to as expressing the doctrine of original sin in somewhat stronger language; the divines of Elizabeth's reign having been brought into more intimate connection with the Calvanistic reformers, and sympathizing with them more than was the case with the divines of the reign of Edward VI.' We cannot find, however, that the doctrine of original sin is expressed in any stronger terms in the Homily on the Nativity, than it is in that on the Misery of Man. The language may, perhaps, be more harsh and violent in the later, than in the earlier, Homily; but what terms are stronger than 'sin, damnation, and death everlasting"? The Homily on The Nativity says: Whereby it came to pass, that, as before he

17 Homily on the Misery of Man.

[Adam] was blessed, so now he was accursed; as before he was loved, so now he was abhorred; as before he was most beautiful and precious, so now he was most vile and wretched in the sight of his Lord and Maker; instead of the image of God, he was now become the image of the devil; instead of the citizen of heaven, he was now become the bond-slave of hell, having in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness, but being altogether spotted and defiled; inasmuch that now he seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin, and therefore, by the just judgment of God, was condemned to everlasting death. This so great and miserable a plague, if it had only rested on Adam, who first offended, it had been so much the easier, and might the better have been borne. But it fell not only on him, but also on his posterity and children forever: so that the whole brood of Adam's flesh should sustain the self-same fall and punishment, which their forefather by his offence most justly deserved.' Thus, according to this Homily, the whole 'posterity of Adam and children forever', the whole brood of Adam's flesh', sustain the self-same fall and punishment'; the fall, namely, into the image of the devil', into nothing else but a lump of sin'; and therefore into the just judgment' and punishment of death everlasting'.

Such is the godly and wholesome doctrine' of the Homilies, which the Episcopal Church of this country, as well as the Church of England, enjoins on her ministers to read most diligently and distinctly' to their congregations, that they may be understanded of the people.' But do these ministers themselves read the Homilies; or understand the awful doctrine of original sin which they teach? Nay, do they believe that doctrine, or dare to preach it to the people?

The same doctrine is, if possible, set forth still more explicitly in the writings of The Fathers of the English Church.' Thus, in the Catechism of 1548, which was prepared by Archbishop Cramner, the most celebrated and influential of the fathers and reformers of the English Church, it is expressly said: 'God sendeth us Christian parents, which cause us to be baptized and grafted into Christ, and to be made the children of God. For, if our parents were not christened, we were like to be wrapped in